How To Use Task-Based Grounding

When problem behavior has been reinforced intermittently over a period of time (which, as we understand behavior, anything that happens with any frequency has been subject to reinforcement in the past) caregivers often express the desire to implement “consequences” (i.e., punishments) to reduce the behavior.

As a “behavior guy,” and a student of the science of behavior, I teach all of the parents and teachers with whom I work that reinforcement of alternative (good, expected, adaptive, positive) behaviors always is preferred over punitive consequences, because reinforcement is known to yield the most robust behavior change results over the long term (if it worked to establish the pattern of problem behavior, it can work to build positive behaviors too!) In my work with others, I always emphasize the importance of developing and maintaining an environment that is teeming with wonderful opportunities for reinforcement of the behaviors we want to see, before we ever consider implementing consequences.

Sometimes, after an environment has been structured to consistently maintain reinforcing contingencies for positive behaviors, the problem behaviors “hang on” and they are reinforced automatically, sometimes by consequences that are outside of the caregivers’ control. Unfortunately, there are times when consequences are needed to establish limits on these problem behaviors.

How do we determine appropriate consequences for problem behaviors like property destruction, purposeful aggression, lying, stealing? Caregivers often indicate the challenge with giving consequences is that the child seems to enjoy them, and they take too little time.

This is a huge challenge, but I believe it is one we can figure out!

Punishment is not a starting place

First, I want to acknowledge that the strong concern that we address serious problem behavior – property destruction, aggression, lying, stealing, etc. – is completely understandable. I agree, these behaviors – whether they stem from our beliefs, our integrity, our desire to help children develop into people who make positive choices – are concerning and we need to shape them. I would like to propose, however, the idea that punishment is not the only way to reduce them. Punishing behaviors can certainly reduce them, but without replacing them with positive alternatives, punishment doesn’t really solve any problem. It often makes adults feel successful when they see kids enduring punishments for their behaviors, but it often doesn’t solve the problem.

When is punishment a reasonable strategy?

There are times, however, when I agree punishment is useful. Typically, I recommend reserving them for serious behaviors such as aggression, property destruction, etc. In some households, I am comfortable with including stealing and lying behaviors if it represents a major concern or a behavior of deep value for caregivers.

Types of punishment

Now, there are two primary categories of punishment. There is “adding something” and there is “taking something away.” Typically, when families decide punishment is needed, they start by taking away privileges, activities, preferred items, etc. – with the purpose of giving the child an experience of losing something as a result of his or her choices. The problem with this is that many times, the loss of something is ineffective to teach the child not to do something. The reason for this is punishment is most effective when it occurs immediately following the behavior so the child associates the consequence with the behavior. When something is taken away, there may be a momentary “sting” when the realization happens, but after that, the misery (call it what you will!) isn’t necessarily associated with the behavior, but with the person who took the thing away.

I typically recommend task-based consequences in combination with the removal of privileges, preferred activities and items, etc. (“grounding”) for a couple of reasons. Before I go into those, let me briefly explain the criteria for effective task-based punishments.

It must be arduous

First, the task must be arduous. Optimally, this means it takes a lot of time, is physically strenuous (to the point of actual fatigue, not just boredom), is menial, is tedious, and is (almost) overwhelmingly large.

With the caregiver I mentioned above, I used the example of sorting a bucket of screws, bolts, nuts, and washers into 4 separate containers. After considering giving her son a the chore as a punishment for using his grandfather’s tools without permission and lying about it, she wrote, “he won’t mind a bit doing a chore like that. He’ll get right to it and be back at the PS4 in 30 minutes. And feel good that that’s all his lying cost him.”

My quick response is as follows: The bucket is too small! If the task that is assigned as a consequence for a major problem behavior takes 30 minutes to complete, then the punishment will not be effective and the behavior may actually be strengthened (the punishment can have the opposite effect). With pre-teen and teen-aged children, I typically recommend consequences that take 3–4 hours to complete. By the end of an effective task-based consequence, the child should be SICK AND TIRED of doing it!

Remind the child what he/she did that resulted in the consequence

Second, the task must clearly be associated with the behavior we’re trying to reduce. This doesn’t mean coming up with a task that “repairs the behavior,” like writing an apology letter, fixing the item that broke, etc. (although it could.) Instead, this means clearly articulating to the child, “You are doing this because you did [X].” Then, frequently during the task, you should ask, “Why are you having to do this?” The correct. and only acceptable, answer is, “I am doing this because I did [X].”

It should be completed independently.

Third, the task must be something the child can complete independently. This means without adult help. This may mean the child needs to be trained to do the task before it is assigned as a punishment. I’ve seen numerous times when the task assigned is cognitively too difficult for a child to do on his or her own, or the “rules” aren’t clearly articulated. Kids are wily little creatures! They will find every loophole, every “but” or “what if” and capitalize on it.

Life stops until the consequence is done.

Fourth, generate a list of privileges, activities, preferred food items, permissions, abundant freedom, etc. that are unavailable until the task is complete. For this, we need to identify the kinds of activities that he/she likely will want to do before the task is complete, the things he or she will wish he/she had access to, etc. and proactively let him/her know those things are unavailable until the task is done.

The list of restrictions should be relatively exhaustive. It should also be explicit (write it down so you can reference it as needed, and so you can present it to the child when or if a question arises.) Examples include reduced drink options at mealtimes; no screentime except for homework; no dessert or snacks between meals; early bedtime; etc.

“Life as usual” stops until the task is done – but when the consequence is over, it is over! All the richness of the schedule of reinforcement for “good” or “expected” behavior should be opened up wide and all of the restrictions on your list should be lifted.

The task shouldn’t be all that useful, or related closely to something important

Finally, the task shouldn’t be something that you want the child to enjoy doing later in life. For example, the task should not be to read books, or write a story. Math problems (easy ones, but A TON OF THEM) might work. It’s okay if the task builds skills that could be useful, but we need to be careful not to put the child off from important activities that will benefit him or her in the future.

Again, I can’t stress this enough: the task should be arduous. It doesn’t matter how simple the task is. It can still be arduous. It can be arduous because it is tedious, or because it requires strong fine motor skills, because it takes a long time, because it requires a skill that is not enjoyable, or because it takes the child away from his or her preferred peers, environment, or activities while it remains undone.

Some examples

Here are a few examples I’ve seen families use effectively:

1. A big box of loose Pokemon cards. The task is to sort them into colors and types, into smaller labeled boxes (a card of each color/type is taped on each box.) If a stray card makes it into the wrong box, both boxes (the correct box, and the one to which the stray card belonged) are emptied back into the original box and must be resorted.
2. A large number of those tiny little necklace-making beads (e.g., 1,000), in multiple colors. Beads are sorted into jars or boxes by color. When the task is done, the jars are emptied back into the original container (how frustrating is that.)
3. This one is old-fashioned, and probably should be reserved for a teen-aged individual: A pile of bricks or pavers is moved from one place in the yard to another. You may decide whether a wheelbarrow or garden cart may be used. Gloves and other protective equipment may be used as needed. Water breaks, etc. are fine (again, the child is grounded from preferred activities and items until the task is done, so however long it takes is however long reinforcement is withheld.)
4. A giant box of Legos must be separated (all Legos taken apart) and sorted into containers by color. The task is complete when the Legos are sorted correctly, with not a single Lego in the wrong container.
5. In reverse, the giant box of Legos must all be connected to each other so there is not a single individual Lego that is not connected to the huge sculpture.
6. A plastic container consisting of 3 different types of beans: black, white, and kidney. The beans must be separated by type.

Once again, the task should take a LONG TIME. If it takes 30 minutes, it likely is not a big enough task! You may even need to combine several tasks to ensure the consequence, taken as a whole, achieves the desired result (that is, it strongly reduces the behavior from happening again!)

Finally, punishment is not a starting place. It is not a strategy to use before an environment full of rich opportunities for reinforcement has been developed and maintained with consistency. If punishment is used at all, it should merely represent the “bookend” to ensure the problem behaviors that linger are limited by the existence contingencies, just as the positive behaviors are facilitated by them.

---

Non-condemnation clause: Children are resilient. If anything you’ve just read has left you feeling guilty or thinking that you haven’t done everything you should, celebrate the realization that there are areas where you have fallen short of perfection. Then, move forward with a new commitment to work on this area of your parenting or teaching. Your kids will benefit more if you hurry up and quit kicking yourself. When and if you fail yet again in this or another area, try to remember that children are resilient beyond our imagination. Somehow, children are able to survive through our insolence, stubbornness, laziness, and/or [insert negative self-attribution here.] Now cheer up and try to keep these ideas in mind as you begin a new day. You’ll do fine.